Dinosaur Wrote:Take for example recent motorway scheme - reports of one sort or another already run into 3 figures, evaluation reports (by at least 6 different organisations) run into 1000 plus pages, not including geophys, specialists etc (ok, so I chipped in my 400 plus pages in 5 reports, very full box-file), around a dozen background info for specialists type reports, summaries for each site, px assessments, progress reports for the client and consultants, all the specialist asessments, px assessment reports for each site, PDs for each stage, analysis reports, etc etc, till finally at the end of the day you get 1 monograph which knowing how these things go will be limited by financial constraints to a rather slim volume with a CD in the back and some nice piccies just on the off-chance that some brave member of species Joe Public ever gets brave enough to pick up a copy - oh, and maybe a 4 page leaflet as a sop to the 'public inerest' lobby.....20000 pages of s**t for 4 pages of mostly company logos? I think 1% is perhaps being generous!

but you know as well as i do that it these things are published for archaeologists not a general readership: the Tractatus was not published to be serialised in the Daily Hate; these are technical documents; shame that more field archaeologists don't read all the specialist reports in their technical docs - as said previously i believe...

Quote:What do you mean? CA is my second favourite archaeological comic

<sigh> I wish I had the energy to be humorous like this! It must take effort beyond my humble capabilities. Or is it, I prefer to be less than pompous (look it up if you have to)

There is a massive debate to be had here, and I am glad it is being discussed.. agreed with, disagreed with, outraged or interested.. I myself am learning quite a bit and I thank those who have contributed to the discussion.

A massive debate? Sorry, I thought this was just a BAJR thread about an apparently humorous 'flat earthist' archaeology group on Facebook. Or did I miss something?

Would you care to outline the proposition we are meant to be debating? If it's do you agree with this CSA group, then I disagree. I've already explained why as have numerous others.

How amusingly tardy this whole debate is. It's only possible merit being in allowing people to relive their undergraduate days in the late 80s and early 90s while kicking what was then 'current' in archaeological theory. Me I prefer Traffic Cops, which reminds me....

Ah... the learning is more than you could imagine in diiddlyshire Indeed the learning is also about people as well...

You disagree.. and that is your right.. and you have stated it as such (though often in the classic vulpes sarcasm - which can be a tad tiring at best) So you have said your piece and that is that.. but no... the fox will not say its piece and finish, there is another word to say (sadly never much that adds to the general discussion- but hey what can we expect)

The Vulpes has spoken the Traffic Cops beckon, but hark... do I feel the Vuples creep once more to the keyboard to speak? What pearls of wisdom from the lips do fall? Ah... nothing much.. how sad, for I also know you are more intelligent that you let on, more sensible than you show..

The debate is here, the words are spoken, the thread is a fascinating read.. I may not agree, but I will have the courest to listen to other sides and can be swayed by reasoned argument. A lesson to be learned is to sometimes, just sometimes.... disagree, but listen as well. :face-kiss:

Glad I am learning, damn right. and I for one look forward to the articles.

Gwyl is right - there is shocking lack of interest in technical data amongst field archs - time was when archaeologists were students and researchers first-and-foremost, excavating when opportunity arose ... archaeologist should be the foremost audience for archaeological reports ... like medical reports would be expected to be read by medics...

to many half-baked dogmas abound - "its just some rubbish in a hole" - dullness and 'sensible' approaches to fieldwork stunt the creativity that is right of the next generation...

So have the pressures of commercial archaeology squashed the inquiring minds we all should have or is theory another means for an archaeological elite to spout unintelligible rubbish that has little meaning at the coal face? :face-stir:

Forgive my insolence but it is a bad bad day for many of us

Is archaeology going to go back to being the domain of the gentlemen (idle rich) scholar?xx(